First published July 23, 2003, in the Chicago Free
Press.
Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey's recent
book "The Man Who Would Be Queen" has been criticized by
transsexual advocacy groups. But most of Bailey's book is about gay
men and that part of his book should have received far more
critical attention than it has.
Bailey primary claim is that the link between femininity and
homosexuality is well-established: "My research demonstrates a
large degree of femininity in gay men." And Bailey thinks this gay
femininity is rooted in the brain. Gay men's brains are a mosaic of
male and female parts, he says.
For example, Bailey says, gay men were feminine in childhood.
They move in feminine ways, have feminine voices (a "gay accent")
and tend to be feminine in their sex roles. They have feminine
interests-show tunes, decorating, fashion, dancing. They have more
psychological problems than heterosexual men such as depression and
anxiety, just as women do.
These are long-familiar stereotypes about gay men. But Bailey
claims the stereotypes are true and true of most gay men. No doubt
some gay men fit part of the stereotype, but the problem with
stereotypes is that believing them causes people to overlook gays
who do not fit the stereotypes, even if they are far more numerous.
Such people think there are few gays.
Thus although Bailey vacillates about the proportion of men who
are gay, he finds 2 percent or even "at least 1 percent" plausible
estimates. Yet avowed gays are at least 4 percent of voter turnout.
And the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey found that in
large cities such as Chicago where Bailey lives more than 9 percent
of men identify as gay or bisexual. (Bailey himself thinks most
"bisexual" men are gay.)
The problems with Bailey's use of stereotypes of gay femininity
to support his notion of gay men's feminized brains are that a)
they are based on exaggerated notion of gender dichotomy, and b)
there are very plausible non-biological explanation for the
instances of stereotyped behavior Bailey mentions.
Gay men may not feel more depression and anxiety than
heterosexual men, though they may be more willing to label and
acknowledge those feelings. But gays obviously face additional
stress growing up and living in a potential hostile environment, so
anxiety could be a valid response.
Most of our speech patterns and body language are learned
behavior, differing from culture to culture, rather than brain
regulated. Thus Americans think Frenchmen act gay. And much of
"gay" gesture and affectation are social performance. Kinsey noted
that most gay men can drop them readily.
Gay men who enjoy receptive anal sex probably do so not because
they feel feminine but because their prostate gland is stimulated
that way. Nor does Bailey trouble himself about "tops," or men who
enjoy both receptive and insertive sex, or men who do not engage in
anal sex at all.
Bailey sometimes acknowledges these alternative explanations,
but even when he agrees they are plausible, he dismisses them with
little argument.
Bailey's view that gay men were feminine boys is based largely
on some gay men's recollections. But retrospective memories are
unreliable: most people recall the things that fit the prevailing
cultural view. In a culture suffused with notions of gay
femininity, gay men likely recall more feminine behavior (and
heterosexual men less) than was actually the case.
And like most heterosexual researchers, Bailey views team sports
as the distinctive masculine activity. He assumes a false dichotomy
of either playing those sports or being feminine. But gay youths
who did not enjoy those sports need not have been feminine, though
some may have internalized that interpretation.
Boys may have preferred individual sports-running, swimming,
diving, gymnastics. Or they might have enjoyed entirely different
activities. I remember as a young child, bike riding, climbing
trees, making castles and forts out of blocks, playing cowboys and
Indians, creating marionette shows, building dams and canals in a
creek, playing with our dog, playing Monopoly, writing a little
newspaper, listening to a lot of classical music, writing stories,
collecting stamps and coins, reading books on astronomy, science
fiction and news magazines.
Basically, Bailey tries to update and biologize the hoary
psychological theory that gays suffer from faulty gender identity.
But Bailey's view, like the older one, dies the death of a thousand
cuts and counter-examples.
When did Bailey go wrong? First, he believes simple-minded,
lower social class notions of exaggerated gender dichotomy. Second,
although he is unforthcoming about his methods in this book, his
past methods of gathering research subjects or data (e.g., ads in
gay newspapers) seemed to skew his results without his realizing
how they might be systematically unrepresentative. Third, Bailey
over-interprets his findings and those of people he agrees
with.
Fourth, Bailey's view of gay men seems shaped particularly by
visits to gay dance bars in Chicago. But the generally younger,
single gay men at dance bars are hardly typical of all gay men in
Chicago's gay enclave, much less those living elsewhere. Fifth,
Bailey seems remarkably un-self-critical, reluctant to look for,
acknowledge or discuss problems or inadequacies in his intuitions,
hypotheses, methods or findings.